Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Dear TV manufacturers,

No one want's your shitty software, it's not a competitive edge. No one has ever been impressed by the software their TV comes with, and for every person that found your software easy to use, there is a thousand who are still trying to figure out what that one button does on their remote. You wanna know what people are care about? Picture quality. That's it. That's always been the key. I don't know why you constantly fail to understand that.

Why can't you just make a dumb screen? You know desktop monitors? Like that. No sound, minimal software, but if you really want to get fancy, maybe a nice small remote to turn it on and off. Everything else, from sound to color profiles can, and have already for years now, be handled by external devices smarter than you.

If you make this, and you focus on picture quality instead of figuring out ways to confuse and exploit the customer, I promise you, I absolutely promise you, every AV nerd I know will buy one. And they will love it. And they will recommend it, and share it, and buy them for their loved ones. And blog about it. Tweet about it. Podcast, vlog and sing about it.

And you'll disrupt the old model. You will be the company that brings about the next revolution in television. You've been looking to do that for so long haven't you? And while you always secretly knew it wasn't IPTV or 3D that was going to start the next revolution, what you didn't know is how easy it would be to disrupt the current incumbents.

The customer is waiting, cash in hand.

Disagree. I agree that many current 'Smart TV' efforts are awful, but the concept is very, very sound. There are TVs with Hulu and Netflix just a few remote presses away - people want that. AV nerds are a small market by comparison.

This seems like more of an extension of hardware manufacturers still not being good at software. I'd say Samsung's version of Android proves that they still aren't great at it (but are getting better).

One major problem is that the TV makers continue to release new models without updating old ones. I got a high-end 55" LG TV with Netflix built in. One year later I moved to another country, where Netflix exists but the TV didn't support it. LG told me that the model year after mine supported changing the region, whatever that means. Since then I changed to iTunes then Amazon, neither of which the TV has. Built-in stuff in will continue to suck until it becomes modular and upgradeable. The rest is mostly worthless, and separate boxes remain necessary.

Exactly. Users are okay with old cellphones getting deprecated because they buy a new one every few years. TVs are expected to last a lot longer. Give me some good powered USB ports for an HDMI stick and get the heck out of my way.

Give me some good powered USB ports for an HDMI stick and get the heck out of my way.

That is a profoundly good idea. Let the TV manufacturer bundle all their "smart apps" stuff on USB-powered HDMI stick like a chromecast. Then five years down the line when the manufacturer has completely forgotten that the model even exists you can just spend $100 and get a modern one from some third party.

With HDMI CEC (Consumer Electronics Control) they can even integrate controlling the HDMI stick through the TV's remote for a completely seamless experience.

It's probably one of those ideas that is so good no manufacturer will ever do it though and we'll just be stuck with obsolete and forgotten software.

That's what AppleTV is, just a hockey puck not a stick.

I still don't understand why "AppleTV" isn't just a dock for your phone with an HDMI tail and an IR receiver on the front... Maybe it's old fashioned of me to not use my phone while watching TV.

Chromecast has shown how very little you actually need connected to the TV in order to provide this kind of functionality though.

Yes - that fight seems similar to cellphones a few years ago. TVs based on Android and the like might be a good start for getting more updates.

How will updating the old model's software help them sell you the new/upgraded one?

I bought the samsung with upgrade ability via evolution kit.


Until they decide not to offer it any more. Which could be next year for what you know.

Personally I'll stick with an external device, as it means there's an endless line of companies waiting to pick up the baton, and if I don't find an off the shelf device, I can set up my own.

There's just no compelling reason to lock myself into whatever the TV manufacturer decides to provide.

Agreed. I've been trying to get my parents and in-laws to check out Netflix for a while. Recently both got new "smart" TVs. Now that Netflix is right on the remote they seem to feel confident and comfortable enough to start using it.

The problem with smart TVs is that their set of applications is quite limited, and once the manufacturer stops updating it, you're stuck with it. I very much prefer just attaching a laptop with the OS of your choice, and the applications of your choice to the TV if/when needed.

That's cool. You may prefer that. But let's not deny that there's a huge market who have valid reasons for preferring it to work in the TV.

Agreed again (I'm just agreeable today), my point was more that once the barrier of another device, another setup, another x is gone, there's going to be a massive influx of new users. I think we're still very much in a transition period, the internet is everywhere and everyone knows it but there's still a surprisingly large amount of growth left.

Another personal anecdote, my father-in-law, who not 2 years ago was unaware of what Google was or how to use it, ordered a riding mower online for next day delivery. That's a large purchase made all of his life at a B&M which he was fine doing online. If someone reliable besides Lowes'/HD had a better price, they would've made the sale.

> I agree that many current 'Smart TV' efforts are awful, but the concept is very, very sound.

What makes the concept sound if the implementation certainly isn't?

> There are TVs with Hulu and Netflix just a few remote presses away - people want that.

Most Blu-ray players, game consoles, DVRs, etc come with Netflix and Hulu too. Why do I want my TV to do it when I have 5 other devices hooked up that can do it with a better UI? People already have these devices, so no, I don't think people want another, shittier, implementation.

> AV nerds are a small market by comparison.

Small, but like every nerd market, very vocal and very influential. Look at the best selling TVs on Amazon, they are all highly recommended in AV circles.

> This seems like more of an extension of hardware manufacturers still not being good at software. I'd say Samsung's version of Android proves that they still aren't great at it (but are getting better).


One look at the average TV remote tells you enough about TV manufacturers and their ability to do any kind of UI design.

Remotes like this: http://wardiesworld.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/raspi_samsun...

always remind me of this: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/11/this-is-what-happen...

have you seen the 2013 samsung remote? http://www2.crutchfield.com.edgesuite.net/pix.crutchfield.co...

It's like the remote designer's revenge. "Too many buttons? I'll show you what it's like to not have buttons!" This remote literally has a button on it that brings up an on-screen picture of a remote that you use by swiping around on the trackpad, so you can get at the buttons your remote is missing.

Ahh, Samsung. Always masters at figuring out how to do the right thing completely wrong. Holy crap that's ugly.

I'm a little surprised that these are all held up as "bad examples". For example, I looked at the picture of the Windows `wget` gui and thought "that doesn't look that bad." Sure there's a lot of dense information, but things are pretty well explained and it's pretty clear how it works. It is ugly, but it's also totally functional.

I guess ultimately, I really don't care how ugly something is if it's at least consistent and informative. However, I know I'm an outlier in this.

Imagine it wasn't wget, but a tool you'd never used before and you didn't know what the arguments meant. All those options are poorly defined. Also, it's confusing how filetypes switch from checkboxes to a listbox.

Trying to cram everything into one panel has left us with nothing but the controls and very little space for information.

Also, even if you wanted that layout, the alignments are terrible and the use of frames is arbitrary and inconsistent.

If I were in that situation, and I find I often am, my choice is to go and read the manual. I think this comes from years of reading man pages for command line tools, but the first step I feel should always be to read the instructions.

You are not the target user for GUIs.

Remotes are incredibly hard to design. My company builds Smart TV Apps we have just about every remote imaginable and that Samsung one you chose "just works" its like the Nokia 3310 of remotes. You can pick it up and use it without thinking about it.

Show me a remote that works better then that one and I can probably tell you why it sucks.

That was my first-cut search and so it's certainly not the worst example, but in software if I put buttons like "T.Link" and "DMA" and 4 unlabeled colored buttons right on the main home-screen of a consumer-oriented UI I'd be laughed out of the room.

Buttons like that are an artifact of the days when TVs didn't have on-screen UIs. The remote should not be designed for the 1% of users that fiddle with such things.

Do heatmaps and find out which buttons are actually used frequently give those big clear buttons with unabbreviated labels, and move everything else into the menus.

And the menus themselves - you have a whole screenful of space, you can actually describe to the user what each option does in helpful detail.

Apple remote comes to mind: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3176

I would like to hear you opinion.

The Apple Remote is solid similar to the Samsung but with out all the keys.

Roku's first remote was very similar but had the same problem - no back button. If you're going to do interactive apps on your TV you need a back button and an exit or "home" button - they're two different things. The Apple remote assumes very limited input almost zero text input so no numbers or extraneous keys like the color keys.

My favorite remote close to the apple one was the Boxee 1 remote (it too needs an explicit back button). But the slim, pared down front side design with the full keyboard on the back was very slick and usable.


That's interesting: the remote was one of the two reasons I ditched my Boxee (the second being that the UI was painful). Initially, the keyboard was a major selling point for me over my AppleTV remote but grey text on black rubber buttons? No backlight? Trying to use the keyboard functionality of the remote in anything other than full lighting was an exercise in futility.

To be fair: UI (virtual and physical) is hard. Thus far, the AppleTV is my favorite but it's a "lesser of two evils" scenario.

I like this one:


It's purely meant as a mouse-and-keyboard thing, and in that vein it has some failures (the mouse-buttons are face-buttons instead of console-style triggers, and the keyboard lacks a way to use the F function keys)... but in general? I used its predecessor (the N9501 instead of N9502) and found the design lovely.

I could navigate my set-top PC easily with the trackball and mouse buttons, and when I needed to do text-entry I could hold it like a thumb keyboard. I even got pretty far in Cipher Prime's Auditorium with the trackball - it was quite pleasant for low-stress mouse-only games (as long as they only need click, not drag). The problem with my old version was that the trackball was not user-servicable (trackballs get dirty, fast) and it wasn't backlit.

The new one uses a touchpad and has backlighting.

I bought the predecessor as well and you're absolutely right: the design is lovely. While I'd say it's more of a full-featured HID than a remote it's well designed and comfortable to use. I didn't know about the new one and I'll keep an eye out for it.

A problem I see is that the tasks of set-top-boxes and displays are relatively constrained, so having a reduced input device seems like a good idea. But how to support free-text searching without a full keyboard (on-screen menus are painful) or having to deal with limited battery life due to a touchscreen?

I lucked into a N5901 -- note that it's N5901 and N5902 -- when I picked up a used Lenovo IdeaCentre Q150, which included one. It beats a wireless keyboard for controlling a set-top PC. I use a IOGEAR wireless compact keyboard on the other set-top PC, but will probably pick up another M5901/N5902 at some point.

Apple remote is great for the target audience, but unusable for a mass market product.

For many consumers, any feature not accessible with a single button won't exist. It will be a major pain point. Having it be accessible as a sequence of actions or through a menu won't work.

Try doing usability testing with a few grumpy 65 year olds or people who have trouble operating a microwave. They are a larger market than you think.

> For many consumers, any feature not accessible with a single button won't exist. It will be a major pain point. Having it be accessible as a sequence of actions or through a menu won't work.

Then those features don't exist, and that's fine. Is our hypothetical Luddite going to be switching audio streams to SAP? Playing with the picture-in-picture feature? Is he going to know what TTX/MIX means? DMA? E.MODE?

No. Undocumented features are also non-existent features. And for most users, the instruction-manual doesn't count.

It's a TV.

Give basic menu-nav buttons - 4 arrows, OK, Back, show/hide menu.

Give the basic TV tuner buttons - the 0-9 buttons, channel up/down, "Guide" menu button. There's the entirety of your TV facility. Guide needs arrow keys, but our main menu nav already provides that. We don't even really need a "Guide" button, "Guide" can be just be the default view of "Menu".

Volume control, input-selector for its functions as a monitor.

That's it. Notice something? None of those require horrifying abbreviations. We already have standard symbols for all of them. No unlabeled colored buttons. Most of those buttons don't even require words because they're so common we have symbols for them. We just covered all of Grandpa's uses - he wants to change channels and change the volume. We're done. Everything else? Your crazy abbreviated buttons are even more user-hostile than the menu, because at least entries in the menu have vowels.

You could easily cut 6 rows off the Samsung I used as an example and Grandpa would still be happy. Happier even because he's no longer confused about all these crazy weird tiny illegible buttons on his remote. You could even make a large-print version for him and it would be smaller than a dinner-plate.

> No unlabeled colored buttons

The red button in particular is used in the UK for lots of TV services. It's not unusual to hear the phrase 'push the red button for X' on TV.

X is usually alternative video feeds of live/sporting events, or different sporting commentary

You can also use the red button for other information such as news headlines, the weather, sport scores. Grandpa uses this, youngsters have their phones and the internet

That is a good point - there can be a good middle ground that's much less complicated than the current 'standard' remotes, but not so extreme as the Apple remote shown above.

On that note, I somehow recall seeing TVs shipped with 2 remotes - the 'full one' and a simple one like you describe, with the expectation that people will choose which they prefer, and members of the same family might have opposite preferences.

Well, part of the difference is that the Apple TV device isn't going to be changing channels, so it doesn't need the whole list of buttons I just mentioned related to channel-surfing. It's basically just the Guide without the numbers. So we're down to just pure menu-nav and the volume-control.

So really, the Apple TV remote isn't that extreme. It's just a remote for an Apple TV set-top box and not a television.

The Apple remote is exactly the remote that came to my mind when I think simplicity. That's what most people use. up, down, left, right, center(for enter/go/confirm) and a menu (for options, back).

Thats 99% of a remote usage, the rest is handled by any GUI.

Except when you have nearly 100+ channels, and remember the 3 digit code for most of the ones you care about - then you want a numeric keypad rather than fiddling around moving up and down in a menu.

I'd never want to be stuck with just an Apple remote.

Layers upon layers of broken systems built upon broken systems.

You only have a few channels you like, and should be able to simply switch between them with a D-pad. But the cable industry's broken business model requires you to subscribe to an order of magnitude more than you want. Clunky set-top box UIs have you constantly paging up and down massive lists. A "favorites" system is nestled deep within some unintuitive menu, and never displays anyway when you go to the channel guide, always requiring more button presses followed by high-latency screen redraws. And thus, you're stuck dialing in a numeric code like it's 1968.

I'm sure you'd be ecstatic to be stuck with an Apple remote, if only the entire rest of the TV experience were up to speed with it.

Car-stereos are another rant on their own (a particularly nasty one since we're going straight from '80s crap to toushcreens and skipping right over sensible car-appropriate UIs), but interesting car-stereo manufacturers always provide presets and don't require you to surf to find the content you want.

1) As another poster pointed out, almost nobody _wants_ 100+ channels.

2) Good God, nobody wants to enter "3-digit codes". Your 100+ channels fit into a regular grid, with, you know, pictures. So I can actually see what's what, without remembering that "124" is "shitty shopping channel #16".

Said grid can be navigated quite quickly with a d-pad. If it was just a regular grid of, say, 12x12 entries, you can reach any entry in 12 clicks. (Assuming your UI does the smart thing and wraps)

3) If you had a better interface, like e.g. categorization, you could do with less than 12 clicks. Optimally utilizing the 4 directions, 4 clicks would do. You'll probably need one or two more, but it's fairly straightforward

4) If the UI designers had paid any attention to decent UIs, they'd be aware of such nifty inventions as "Favorites" and "Recently visited", which means even less key strokes.

5) Can we already ditch the "dedicated remote" nonsense, even the Apple one, and admit pretty much every household has some sort of Wifi enabled touch screen in their home? E.g. a much better device for your UI?

That was my though too. But to do that you have to control both software and hardware which Apple can.

As does every other TV and player manufacturer. We're not talking about PCs here, or 3rd-party remote manufacturers. We're talking about Sony, Samsung, and LG and the baked-in TV software.

They control the screen, the software, and the controller, same as Apple. They're just not as good at it as Apple.

I don't like Apple - I don't like the horrifying complete lock-in of hardware/software/media. But I admit something: Apple wins because they're the best. Period.

Actually that's not necessary. I have XBMC installed into an old Macbook that uses the Apple Remote perfectly. Their usage fits into A.R. layout and buttons.

The LG Magic Remote is by far the best remote I have ever used, particularly for "smart" content, browsing, using apps such as NetFlix, etc. It's almost as natural and simple as using a mouse and hands down beats other TV type input methods I've seen (game controllers, Apple remote, etc.).

Shame LG seem intent on ruining it with the spying, I hope they have a change of approach and resolve this.

One interesting thing about UI design - it all seems so obvious. But a guy who designed airplane cockpits told me that those "obvious" aspects were all paid for in blood.

They're obvious only in hindsight.

I had that Samsung remote and then upgraded to a newer model as the previous Samsung glass TV base literally exploded. And amusingly, the newer remote is far worse than the one you've used as an example. I wish I could revert!


I plan to keep using my TV for at least 10 years and probably rather longer. There is no chance any of the "smart" BS will still be useful then. (Imagine you had a "smart" TV in 2004 that, say, updated your Myspace page.)

Obviously as far as the manufacturer is concerned, they'd rather I buy a new TV after 4 years so I can get new "smart apps" and yada yada yada, but anyone who does research isn't going to fall for that.

My mother bought a nice Sony smart TV in 2012, but it was a 2011 model still in stores. The TV has a bunch of apps, can display video from a bunch of sites, but Sony REFUSES to release a Netflix app for it, stating Netflix is only for 2012 models.

The hardware is there, it can run stuff and show videos just fine, but the manufacturer refuses to update it. It really pisses me off since it's a nice panel with great picture quality.

Breaking news: Customer buys something from Sony, gets boned without lube. Ric Romero has film at 11.

That doesn't make sense to me. I have a Sony I bought in 2010 that has Netflix on it. Never-going-to-get updated, slow interface Netflix, but it's there.

It sure doesn't, but it's what happened.


The rate of change of the "smart" technology is far greater than that of the actual video display. That is, I expect that the TV will continue to work for displaying video for many years, but the cycle time for "smart" services is currently months or very few years.

Thus, to keep current with the ability to display content, I'd need to dump a display system that's perfectly good.

Better to separate the modules. Have a really good display system, and separate, a smart device that handles content. That smart device can be dead-simple to install and to operate, and still do a great job (like Roku).

So, basically a monitor attached to an HTPC?

Tangent: I think there's room for an 'Android of TVs.'

This may or may not be Android, which is kind of the problem. The most likely contenders here (Apple, Google, MS, Sony) have a dog in the race & incumbent problems. They committed to an approach or a technology too early. They have a market (eg itunes), complementary products or ecosystems to protect.

What does TV software really need in order to be significantly better than the average smart TV? A handful of core apps (Youtube, Netflix), some local ???Players (these could be introduced market by market) and some experimental/novelty apps (eg Skype, spotify). That's it. That's a good start. Crappy games and access to 99 upstart content marketplaces is not necessary. An app marketplace could come second.

*Vanilla android is not the answer. If it's going to be android it needs to be android for TV.

Isn't the Android of TVs the Google TV?

What you're describing though is currently what the Apple TV is like. It comes with Netflix, Youtube and a bunch of other apps (sports stuff, a few music services, etc). It's missing an app store - but there's a pretty decent chance that will arrive at some point over the next few years (there are so many apps on there at this point that it's becoming a little cluttered, so I think it's coming sooner rather than later).

Even though Apple has iTunes, their primary business is hardware and they don't seem to have an issue with putting iTunes competitors on there.

Of course, the Apple TV has a long way to go. It's still pretty much a hobby project (although recently it's getting more and more updates).

My Apple TV is one of my absolute favorite gadgets. I seriously love this little box. My TV is merely turned on, the HDMI input is selected, and between the neat remote and my iPhone I'm set for all my content.

I wish the YouTube interface was better though, but with the new AirPlay stuff, it's becoming less and less of an issue. Very neat, if you have all the bits for the full "ecosystem" (up until I did, it was a lot more painful and got less use).

Maybe eventually but not yet.

Android on the TV is like Windows XP on your phone right now. It's cool that it's possible, but very obviously not what it was intended for. Android for TV (whether or not it is based on Android) needs to be designed for the job.

The Apple TV is problematic in that it can't come bundled with your TV. Part of what I mean by 'Android for X' is that Samsung can put it in their products and build their strategy around it.

Android on the TV is something to run XBMC on, where you only occasionally, if ever, exit to "plain" Android.

I think the best solution would be a well-built remote that plays nice with vanilla android. Android needs touch - that means a quick way to click on various screen elements, a good way to drag-scroll, and a way to use the onscreen keyboard.

A good hardware peripheral should be able to provide those services. Just give me an airmouse with a drag-scroll joystick and a keyboard when I need it. The problem is that most hardware vendors trying to hit this market are serious lowest-common-denominator companies - fly-by-night Chinese manufacturers and whatnot. Sony did it too, but they stuck it to the stillborn Google TV OS.

Take it away from the TV division and get somebody who designs controllers to make the remote. Get the Playstation guys on this. A hybrid between the PS3 Move Controller and this thing:


Why isn't the Android based Google TV the "Android of TVs?" If I remember correctly, most of Google TV was merged into Android itself.



why is vanilla android not the answer? i don't even need apps. just a browser, really.

Because Android is a touch-centric OS. I've picked up some HDMI sticks that put a decent skin on Android and use an AirMouse for the UI, and it's not fun. Most of the apps use drag-based scrolling which is painful with an airmouse, and on-screen keyboards.

That said, a simple clean airmouse is so much nicer than the zillion-button monstrosities of traditional TV remotes.

The problem is that what you're suggesting is a race to the bottom in terms of price. The TV industry is hurting from that approach, which is why they're now trying to become more than just dumb panels.

"No one want's your shitty software, it's not a competitive edge [...] You wanna know what people are care about? Picture quality."

To be fair, a lot of that is software, too, nowadays. Upscaling without visible artifacts? Figuring out what the optimal backlighting should be? Adaptive blurring? Motion blur compensation? All done in software.

A large part of the problem, I think, is that tv companies, traditionally, let the hardware engineers who write that software add a menu structure, because they are programmers, and all programming is programming, isn't it? I do think things are a lot better than they were 5 years ago, but could be a lot better still.

No, that's not what happens at all. Are you living under a rock? Every CEO and his brother wants to talk about "value-adds" via custom software and branded interfaces.

No one would argue that signal processing and the stuff traditionally known as "firmware" has a valid purpose. It's the stuff that arises when an executive get a boner for a "product vision" that people don't want or need. It's the kind of trash that looks alluring on a list of bullet points, but gets turned over every 24 months because it's utterly void of any substance, and only got produced at the whims of some empty suit trying to prove his worth.

I agree; what I described is an early stage that we have left far behind. Your description is way more accurate for where we are now. And that isn't limited to firmware; I think 3D TV sets with shutter glasses fall in the same category (everybody wants 3D, but that technology simply isn't convenient enough for home use)

I also think that t.v. manufacturers _must_ try to improve their offering with features not directly related to image or audio quality; there is no margin in plain television sets and too few get sold (one every 4-5 years per family vs one smartphone every two years or so per person). Problem is not that they try, but that they don't succeed. In that sense, there is an opportunity for someone with an Apple-like approach to enter the market.

I doubt people care about picture quality as they watch SD channels when the HD version is available. Norms care about having 1 box that they plug in with the fewest number of cables and works well enough they don't need to buy something else. Geeks want a display, norms want a TV.

Of course I want a new firmware board for my 5 year old HD TV which sends the wrong resolution data to my pc, has a terrible SD UI, and doesn't decode HD OTA signals, but it's not going to be cheaper than buying a new TV

Norms? Really.

Edit: You can get big, dumb TVs that look stellar. Look at TVs targeting the commercial space. Of course, you're going to pay for it though.

My mother bought an LG flatscreen, but I had to show her how to use it. A gyroscopic remote? Ads in her TV menu? Using the system was painful even for me and I fully expect that the software will not be updated two years from now. I guess the manufacturers feel they have to be able to point to something unique or different, even if it doesn't actually provide any value (like "Collectors Edition cereal boxes") and that idea gets in the way of focusing on core strengths/"less-is-more".

(I bought her a Roku 3 but it was returned due to hardware errors so she's been using the TV system since)

Actually quite like the DLNA browser and renderer capabilities on mine, and the youtube feature, means I don't need another box attached. I already have enough with the audio receiver and various consoles.

Agreed, I have a Sony Bravia and I love the Netflix button, plus the ability to easily watch youtube and movies that I have on my computer through the menu. Sure, I could get the same thing other ways (Roku, Wii, etc), but having it built into the TV is pretty handy.

I just bought a TV. I bought a 720 'cos it was cheaper (because, really, who cares about "picture quality" except nerds?), and I was really impressed with the software - it can do DLNA streaming, Youtube pairing, and Netflix and none of that was even mentioned on the box! Means I don't even need to bother gluing a Raspberry Pi to the back like I planned. Awesome! And so cheap!

(In case it wasn't clear... you are not the only market segment. Neither am I.)

I don't believe this is true. Anecdotally:

1. I cannot easily distinguish between SD and HD screens. I would much rather have a faster frame rate or better sound quality or an easier way to legally access international TV channels. Better picture quality? I don't care for that any more.

2. My (non-technical) housemate plans to upgrade his TV to one with built-in software, because he thinks it will be an improvement on the buggy set-top box software and he won't need to worry about cabling and upgrading external devices. He has no interest in HD either, but he is happy to pay for a TV with better picture quality simply because he imagines that paying more for a TV means he'll get better software.

Dear LG,

I just returned a Nexus 5 because it had poor reception compared to other phones using the same SIM card.

I was going to buy a LG G2 but having just seen how you treat your TV customers as cattle, I won't touch anything from LG for the forseeable future.

In a nutshell, LG, you lose my money.



Most people dont actually care about picture quality, if they did they wouldnt buy a tv based on how it looks in the store. From my personal experience there are a lot of people who either cant tell or dont care if the current cable channel is in HD or not.

Most people care about how big it is and much it cost, hench why LCDs beat out Plasmas.

In case you're wondering, here's the company behind this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/02/cognitive_lands_lg_a...

Alternatively, just throw Android in there and let me hack away. That would at least be fun.

It's too bad your views don't represent the views of the vast majority of TV buyers.

Simplicity is another thing I value immensely, which this branded-software nightmare is completely at odds with. A TV should be a dumb display, with connectivity for anything people may want to add. Nothing more. I don't want to pay for trash I'll never use and I certainly don't want to be stuck with it or spied on by it. Nor do I want a frankenstein-remote with 300 buttons when 12 will do.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact